Thank you all for showing up at the public hearing, and again tonight, to watch the Board weigh the complaints against me made by Commissioners Hansen, Novacek and Cleminson.

The determination made tonight, after 1.5 hours of discussion, was that:

• there was no violation of the open meeting law
• there was a violation of internal policy regarding how to handle emails in order to avoid the perception of open meeting law violations
• there is a need to reprimand me for disruptive behavior at planning commission meetings.

(At least that's what I think I heard.  What did the people in the room think?  They knowingly scheduled the meeting for a time that I could not be there because of work obligations.)

Cory Behrendt, as the Township IT supervisor made it possible for me to be at the meeting electronically.

Thanks, Cory.  

And thanks again to all of you for showing up or supporting me in other ways.  

It matters, so does your vote.

Carrie

DOES A PUBLIC OFFICIAL'S CHARACTER MATTER?

CHARACTER  can be described as: 1. The aggregate of features and tasks that form the individual nature of some person, 2. one such feature or trait, 3. moral or ethical quality, 4. reputation, 5. an account of the qualities or peculiarities of a person.

Are the above characteristics important when evaluating our public officials who represent the citizens of Eureka?

Many of you are aware of the special meeting that was held on September 10 as a result of complaints submitted to the Board by Chair Butch Hansen, Commissioners Phil Cleminson and Al Novacek against Commissioner Carrie Jennings. At the July and August Town Board meetings, Chair Miller and Attorney Lemmons stated that those who attended the Public Hearing would be allowed to give verbal statements
regarding the complaints.  Those who intended to testify were informed upon arrival at the September 10 hearing that they could make no comments other than to address the content of the complaints. No comments were allowed as to the behavior of the three accusers. Carrie was able to call three witnesses on her behalf. I had requested copies of the complaints days before the meeting.  My request was denied even though the Data Practice Policy allows complaints to be made public without signatures. I am rather perplexed as to how the public was expected to offer comments when they were not allowed to have access to the complaints.

Chair Hansen:  Chair Hansen's complaint (dated  June 12) stated that Commissioner Jennings has violated the Open Meeting Law by sending information requested from Travis Thiel to all Planning Commission members including Supervisor Miller.  He also accused Commissioner Jennings of having a "blatant disregard" for rules and regulations. Chair Hansen failed to offer justification as to why he felt this was a violation of the Open Meeting Law.

My Comments:  As Nancy Sauber stated at the Public Hearing, "Violations of the Open Meeting Law can include discussions of or decisions made about Township business outside of an open, public meeting. If materials were sent out and emails were sent back and forth, with people making arguments, that would be a problem." A request from Commissioner Jennings to Travis Thiel, the Vermillion River Watershed  Specialist, for a website link so that the Commissioners could attend the following Planning Commission meeting prepared to speak on the VRWJPO, is NOT a violation of the Open Meeting Law.

During this period, the Township did not have a Clerk.  Commissioner Jennings sent the e-mail to the Township to be distributed to the Commissioners. The e-mail was bounced back with a statement that there was no one in the office to do so. 
Nancy Sauber  stated that " the Township policy of having Commissioners and Supervisors go through the clerk is at MAT's recommendation, just to be very, very sure that people do not fall off the slippery slope of  Open Meeting Law violation. This does not mean that any e-mail that does NOT go through the clerk IS a violation of the Open Meeting Law."
At more than one meeting, Chair Hansen did not provide public copies of  meeting materials as required by Open Meeting Law, nor did he provide copies to the members of the Commission to utilize for discussion. There was no Clerk at this time.

Commissioner Cleminson: Commissioner Cleminson's complaint (dated July 10) stated that Commissioner Jennings was asked by Chair Hansen to "act with decorum and respect the authority of the Chair" and that she stated that she would not. He also complained that Commissioner Jennings is disruptive in the meetings, confrontational with the Chair, condescending and defiant. Mr. Cleminson did not provide information to support his complaint.

My Comments: I have attended the majority of the Planning Commission meetings and also video record them. I have never heard Commissioner Jennings refuse to act with decorum and respect the authority of the Chair.  Immediately after a Planning Commission meeting, I heard Chair Hansen make a statement to Commissioner Jennings that "she did not respect him." He told her that "he was the Chair" and reminded Commissioner Jennings that "she LOST that vote." 

Commissioner Jennings stated that she would respect him but expected the same respect from him.

On several occasions Mr. Hansen has stated in a loud voice words to the effect of "Are you finished, Carrie? Are you finished, so that I can continue." She, in fact, has been interrupted many times by the Chair. Also on several occasions, Chair Hansen has stated "Let me put this as plain as I can, Carrie, so you can understand it."  When Carrie Jennings sent out a doodle e-mail unanimously requested by the Planning Commission to set a date for an open house, Supervisor Madden responded via e-mail to her that she needed to go through the chain of command and then stated "I cannot believe how ignorant you are carry [sic]!" As clarified through the Township attorney in the past, a doodle e-mail to set a meeting date is NOT a violation of the Open Meeting Law!  This behavior toward Commissioner Jennings is disrespectful, condescending and can be characterized as "browbeating."

Commissioner Cleminson:  Commissioner Cleminson stated that "the Township utilizes Robert's Rules of Order as a guideline to operate our meetings." Nancy Sauber's comment. "The Township has never adopted Roberts' Rules of Order. The Minnesota Association of Townships recommends that townships do not, as the Rules are awkward and cumbersome and could even invalidate decisions if not followed to the letter. Even if the Rules had been adopted, would this be just cause for removal from office? Commissioner Cleminson should know better by now."

Commissioner Novacek:  Commissioner Novacek's complaint (dated July 9) stated that Commissioner Jennings "violated e-mail policy." He also stated that he asked her "if she would follow policy in the future." Commissioner Jennings stated that she was not obligated to respond to this question. Commissioner Novacek stated that her lack of response "sends a clear message that she will not honor any policy she finds obstructive to her personal and openly stated water agenda." He also stated that "she presents a highly disruptive tone and will cause serious harm to members of this Township." (Really! How so? Examples please! I believe this accusation is quite serious.)

My Comments: Commissioner Novacek did not support his comments with any factual data. I have never heard Commissioner Jennings state a "personal agenda." Nancy Sauber's comments: "Time and time again Commissioner Jennings has been castigated for bringing information that she researched on her own to meetings. She has been accused of bringing "biased" information. It was stated that she was not given direction by the rest of the Planning Commission and she cannot do research on her own. Commissioner Jennings is being a responsible Planning Commissioner by taking some initiative and providing information to help the members make informed decisions. Instead, attempts have been made to squelch her."

My Comments: Commissioner Jennings' behavior is professional and she conducts herself in a businesslike manner.  It is very clear that Commissioner Jennings reviews her meeting packet days before the meeting (I noticed Commissioner Cleminson and Chair Hansen pick up their meeting packets several minutes before the meeting), does her research and comes prepared for the discussions, presents facts and exercises her right to challenge other Commissioners if she feels their information is not valid or needs clarification.  She has a right to do so. Commissioner Jennings asks relevant and intelligent questions. I have never seen Commissioner Cleminson get up to participate in a map discussion and, after attending most meetings and in review of my video recordings, he seems to have very little to offer during Commission discussions.  At times he has referred to Commissioner Jennings as "mom" and "teacher."

The three complainants should be thanking her for providing information to assist them, for her commitment to creating a complete and factual legal record, and her caution in setting precedent that might be detrimental in the future to citizens or the Township. Perhaps if the three complainants would avail themselves of training sessions which are offered by MAT they might understand the parameters of the laws and procedures that should govern their behavior. To my knowledge, I am not aware that they have ever attended a training session.

Atina and Martin Diffley submitted comments to the Clerk to be read at the Public Hearing.  Unfortunately it was not allowed that their comments could become part of the record.  The following are some of the comments that were submitted by the Diffleys who have given their consent to utilize them in this blog.

"We are shocked that the Township Supervisors have allowed this mockery of the democratic process to take place. There is no "just cause" for removal or a public hearing of Commissioner Jennings. If the Township Supervisors and Commissioners Novacek, Hansen and Cleminson had done their homework on this matter, they would have learned that Commissioner Jennings' e-mail was not a violation of the Open Meeting Law. The Eureka Township Supervisors are wasting Township money and time, and causing inexcusable legal fees for Commissioner Jennings' defense.

If it weren't blatant harassment and a serious attempt to remove Commissioner Jennings from the Planning Commission for political reasons, Commissioner Novacek's complaint could be laughable.

Falsely accusing Commissioner Jennings of having no regard for rules and settings when she was clearly operating on her knowledge of the Open Meeting Law, and then turning that mistruth into multiple Planning Commission members having no regard.....sounds like a big leap from a false accusation to a projected threat.

Making decisions that protect Eureka Township citizens' public water based on scientific information and Commissioner Jennings' professional education and experience is not a 'personal agenda'.  It is responsible leadership.

Recently, Commissioner Hansen said to me (Atina) in regards to this matter, 'Carrie Jennings is going to pay for her arrogance. This time she's gone too far.'

Please enter our comments into the record of the Public Hearing."  
Atina and Martin Diffley

Commissioner Jennings has worked for the DNR Ecological and Water Resources Division, Ground Water Section, County Atlas Program and the Division of Lands and Minerals, Mineral and Aggregate Potential Section. She has been a Visiting Assistant Professor at Carleton College, Instructor at Macalester College, St. John's University and St. Cloud University. Commissioner Jennings was also a Senior and Associate Scientist at the University of Minnesota, Principal Investigator for the National Center for Earth Surface Dynamics and Assistant Geologist at Harza Engineering Company; a brief mention of many accomplishments.  She is currently employed at the Department of Natural Resources, Eco-waters Division. 

My Comments: It seems quite peculiar that Commissioner Jennings
has held many positions with integrity and good standing, but seems to "fall short" as a Commissioner according to the complaints of three Eureka male Commissioners. Is it possible that they are lacking a command of the English language, misinterpret research and facts for arrogance and/or lack an understanding of the Open Meeting Law, Township policies and practices?

Over the years that I have lived in Eureka, intelligent, competent and accomplished women on the Board and Planning Commission have been bullied and treated with disrespect, in my opinion.  From my experience, this started with Bev Topp, a past Supervisor. Mrs. Topp is a very educated and intelligent woman who is very accomplished in her field. There were issues of improprieties during her campaign by a few Eureka citizens who seemingly did not want her to serve as a public official. 

I served on the Board with Supervisor Connie Anderson who resigned as the stress adversely affected her health.

Commissioner Novacek, during a Town Board meeting, FALSELY accused Commissioner Barfknecht of improprieties. He actually went to her home and suggested to her that she resign from the Planning Commission.  He told her that "when she does not vote as he thinks she should, he would like to knock her off her chair." This was reported by Commissioner Barfknecht at the public comment period of a Town Board meeting. NO BOARD ACTION was taken regarding Commissioner Novacek's threatening and false comments. He publicly and FALSELY accused Clerk Sandstrom of improprieties, suggesting that Sandstrom had not even opened the ballots cast when Commissioner Barfknecht was reappointed. 

While I was serving on the Town Board for three years, Chair Hansen sued me with the intent of removing me from office as well as receiving financial compensation. The lawsuit was frivolous and dismissed without compensation. I completed my term. During his deposition Mr. Hansen was asked, "When is the last time you filed a tax return?"  Mr. Hansen stated, "Might be 15 years. It's not a law."

MY INTENT in writing this blog is not to curry favor from Commissioner Jennings, but to set the record straight as I see it or have experienced it.

DOES A PUBLIC OFFICIAL'S CHARACTER MATTER? Should the citizens of Eureka
vet candidates for Town Board Supervisors and Planning Commission members with reasonable scrutiny?  Are there valid reasons for citizens, at times, to be cynical and disenfranchised? 

Nancy Sauber made the observation that "if upon first discussing the complaints at its meeting, had the Board simply asked Attorney Lemmons if any of the complaints even rose to the level of "just cause" for removal, as required under the Ordinance, I believe he would have answered "no." This matter should have ended there.  Now we are spending Township time and money for no good reason."  Stay tuned!

HOLY HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE, BATMAN!!!!!

How's YOUR blood pressure doing?  Mine is cookin' away!  Let me tell you why:


For the Board meeting of September 8th, I had requested under the Citizen Input Policy to be placed on the agenda concerning "Ordinance issues."  Those of you who are longer-time readers might recall I have done this in the past. "Public comments," which occur separately on the agenda are limited in length to three minutes.  Not much time to make a point. (You might recall Chair Storlie's moving my requested agenda item to the three-minute public comment section of the agenda, thus effectively reducing the time I as a citizen had to make my argument.  It seemed to me at the time that perhaps he didn't really want to hear from me at all?!?  I strongly objected to his moving of my item.)     The Citizen Input Policy states "Citizens or groups wishing to address the Board are encouraged to complete Agenda Request Form and request that an item be placed on the agenda  for discussion
at a regular Township Board meeting. Although the policy addresses the time limit on "public comments" at the beginning of a meeting and "random" comments "during a meeting," a close read reveals that there is no time limit given for agenda items that are requested. Bear that in mind: in the normal course of things, people on the agenda are not cut off before they can even present their comments, much less can expect any "discussion" as mentioned in this Board-adopted policy.


Chair Kenny Miller "permitted" me to go through my first Ordinance issue comments without interruption.(Without any discussion at that time, either, I might add.) My comments were regarding the Transfer of Building Rights Ordinance procedure.  I had served on that Task Force, attending all the meetings at which very few Supervisors were ever present and wanted to follow up on a pertinent question that had come up at the Planning Commission meeting the week before.   

However, when I embarked upon my second area of comment which quoted Board and Commission comments from the June 10th Roundtable between the two bodies in regard to the VRWJPO

Water Ordinance, I was quite rudely interrupted.  I was just a few minutes in on my comments as a whole and barely a minute or so on the Water Ordinance item when I became aware of  "sounds of objection" coming from the vicinity of Commissioners Hansen and Cleminson at the side table, as well as Chair Miller cutting me off, saying I had gone beyond my "time limit."  Further, Miller then said emphatically in the direction of the two Commissioners, "She has 40 seconds!"   40 seconds, Mr. Chair, as much as that?

Okay, so this is a Board meeting and the Board Chair responds to two Commissioners who seem to think he should not let me, a concerned citizen, continue to quote the discussion of the Water Ordinance at an OPEN, PUBLIC MEETING of the two bodies, illustrating my concerns. I don't believe they were even recognized by the Chair before the sounds came from their direction. Is this the tail wagging the dog? How conversant is the Board with the adopted policies they are supposed to be following?

My intent in quoting from the Roundtable Meeting was to point out that Commissioners Hansen, Cleminson, and Novacek seemingly "forgot" the Board's directive from that meeting at their September 1 Commission meeting.  On June 10th, the Board had requested "information, fact-finding, individual opinions from the Commission" so that the Board could "responsibly" consider the input and "be educated" on the topic. But what the three Caballeros did was to move to pass the Ordinance on to the Board for adoption, plain and simple, no report.  Commissioner Jennings, supported by Commissioner Barfknecht, had moved to table the vote at least until the minutes from the Special Meeting with the water specialists were complete and approved. WELL, that was voted down 3-2.  Commissioner Novacek's motion was then approved 3-2. (Strangely, the VRWJPO Ordinance matter was not even on the Board agenda for their meeting on the 8th.)

Chair Miller indicated that he thought my comments (which he had scarcely heard the start of) were more appropriate "for a public hearing."  No, Mr. Miller, I would submit to you that that would be way too late if you, as Board Chair, joined by the other supervisors, are not even going to insist beforehand that the Commission provide what you asked for and which Hansen's motion stated they would do.

Is it really too much to ask that Eureka public officials do what they say they are going to do?  Why are some seemingly so uncomfortable at being reminded what they said at a public meeting?

Below are the comments that I had wished to present to the Board:

The second ordinance matter I wish to bring before the Board is that of the Vermillion River Watershed Ordinance.  I speak here as a former Supervisor and a contact person to the VRWJPO.  At the June 10th Roundtable meeting between the Board and the Commission, it was determined that the Planning Commission would review the Ordinance and report to the Board.  When it was raised that a certain Commissioner felt she would just be out-voted, no matter what she contributes, Chair Kenny Miller (starting at approximately 1:42:10) stated, "To respond to one member being out-voted or outweighed, I don't think that there's any vote or out-vote to happen here.  We're looking for information from the panel.  We, responsibly, should weigh one Commission member's fact-finding with what is good for the Township, not against each others' comments.  I want to get from you as a Commission...as a Board, we want to see your individual thoughts so we can weigh them when we make our decision...I think we need to review each member's position and their [sic] input for our own education.  We are going to depend on you to give us information, whether it is singly or as a board. [sic]  You should view all points of it, and you may disagree on whether we should or shouldn't do it, but I am asking you for supporting information, for the pros and cons of this...I would ask that we look at each of your positions and weigh those positions, the pros and the cons.  We want information in front of us."  Butch Hansen made a motion (seconded by Cleminson) that the Planning Commssion "take over the VRWJPO Ordinance review and come back with the information that the Board is seeking."  In the following discussion, Chair Miller again restated that "We are asking you to be an information-gathering [body]."

At the last Planning Commission meeting:

1. The minutes from the Special Meeting of August 18th with Zabel, Slavik, and Watson, were deemed incomplete and were not approved.  Some of the information that was missing from the minutes, for example, was Brian Watson's statements that Eureka has many more challenges than any other township in Dakota County.

2.  It was stated by Chair Hansen that it was "clear" to him that the guests that evening wanted the Township to take over the permitting. It was stated by the guests, more than once, that it does not make a difference to them who does the permitting.  It only matters that the standards are implemented and enforced.  This position of theirs was clear to me as an audience member.

3. It was stated and argued incorrectly by Chair Hansen that the Township review process does not take place side by side with the JPO's review, but, rather, that their review adds much more time.  At each meeting that I have been at, different residents have had their VRWJPO letter in hand.  I have not heard one of them complain about time matters.  AND, as it happens, I was the individual who spoke to the JPO after which they agreed that the Planning Commission could go forward with its review of an application concurrent with the JPO's review, as long as the Board did not approve anything until it had heard from the JPO.  This information and Travis Thiel's email confirming all this has been sent out by me thru the clerk on more than one occasion.

4. Commissioner Hansen even stated that the Board "didn't care" about the Township's taking on the Ordinance--only one Supervisor was in attendance at the meeting all the way thru, he said, and one came a half hour late.  Liaison Behrendt said he did care, but that the meeting was scheduled when he was out of town for a business meeting and he was not able to attend.

5.  Commissoner Novacek made a motion to send the Ordinance to the Board for it to approve it.  Carrie Jennings moved to table that motion at least until the minutes from the special meeting were completed and reviewed.  Her motion failed in a 3-2 vote.  Mr. Novacek's motion passed by a 3-2 vote.

My question is:

WHERE IS THE INFORMATION THAT THE BOARD ASKED BE PRESENTED TO THEM?

                    What's in YOUR medicine cabinet?

DAS WASSER, VATTEN, AGUA, VANN, VODA,...WATER!!!

On August 18th, The Eureka Planning Commission held a Special Meeting to ask questions of local "water experts" and officials.  The Commission was in full attendance, with the late arrival of Commissioner Cleminson.  Supervisor Kenny Miller was present for the whole meeting, while Supervisor Ceminsky arrived later in the meeting.  The invited guests were Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) Administrator, Mark Zabel, Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) District Manager/Wetland Specialist, Brian Watson, and Dakota County Commissioner and VRWJPO Chair, Mike Slavik.

If I am keeping my meetings straight, Yours Truly was the sole audience member present.  As such, I report to you now, aided by my disc recording copy of the meeting without trying to go into too much detail on a very detailed subject.

Chair Hansen opened the meeting at 7:10 p.m., stating that the purpose of the meeting was "to discuss how hard it is for [Eureka] to manage the permitting process that [the VRWJPO] does now."  He stated that other communities are doing their own permitting and asked if the VRWJPO was "having any problems with those communities."  Mark Zabel replied that the answer thus far was "generally, no," but also that the JPO "has not instituted any strong evaluation program."  They have not been spot-checking permits or requiring any particular recording, for instance.  Zabel said that those elements are what the JPO would plan to do after it is through with the current Water Plan updating process.

Zabel then gave an overview of what would need to be done if Eureka wanted to do its own watershed permitting.  Eureka had previously adopted the Water Plan, he offered, but chose not to adopt the Ordinance, which is the enforceable mechanism by which the standards are upheld.  Zabel said that what the Township needs to do, if desired, is to develop a draft ordinance that meets the requirements of the standards and provide it to the JPO for its review.  Once the ordinance would pass review and be approved, Eureka could adopt the ordinance and the JPO "would rescind its earlier action and vacate the field of regulation."

Hansen then asked, "Would you prefer that we did that?"  Zabel replied, "We don't have a preference. Our goal is to have the watershed standards implemented.  Whether we do it or you do it, makes no difference.  It's just that the standards need to be implemented and they need to be enforced when somebody doesn't do what they are supposed to be doing."

Next, Commissioner Novacek asked, "What do you mean by 'draft an ordinance?'  To what effect?"  Zabel answered, "There are five standards: the buffer requirements, the storm water requirement/the erosion and sediment control requirements, wetland alteration, drainage alteration, and floodplain alteration.  As long as all those requirements are included within the [proposed] ordinance and it meets the level of implementation that we would do as the watershed, then you can go ahead and do it."  "Agriculture is the sixth standard, but that is all voluntary, so it doesn't have to be in the ordinance."

Commissioner Jennings asked questions that went into more detail about Township engineer involvement, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and staff review, submission of the SWPPP to the Pollution Control Agency (PCA), SWCD involvement in the wetlands, trout stream designation, and so on.  Supervisor Miller joined in some of her questions.
Commissioner Novacek asked, "From the perspective of just some guy building a house, what would be the benefit for [Eureka] to take it over, or for you to keep it.  What would be the downside of either one?"
Administrator Zabel answered, "There shouldn't be any difference. If you take it on, then the VRWJPO would not have to approve the application at its monthly meeting.  The permitting process would be under local control."

The discussion moved on to the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), with Brian Watson commenting on the topic. The responsible authority for implementing the state WCA in Eureka Township is Eureka Township.  The SWCD entered into an agreement with all the townships back in 2002 to do field reviews and to assist landowners with what's required under WCA, and so forth."  (Similar to the agreement with the County involving Floodplain and Shoreland)  This wetland work is covered by a state grant to provide those services throughout all of Dakota County.  Wetland delineation is separate.  Any work above and beyond state requirements would involve a fee for service.

Buffer and setback requirements were next discussed. Wetlands are assessed as to quality which determines the required setback and easement.  In a recent lot split in Eureka, an exemption was met, so just setbacks were determined.  If there should be a subsequent lot split on this property, then the buffer would "be developed, The owner did not have to put it into an easement at this time," Zabel stated.  In  another recent Eureka lot split discussed, the size of the lot was large enough so that it qualified for Green Acres, thus meeting an exemption.  Parcels such as this do not have to actually be enrolled in Green Acres, but must meet requirements that would make them eligible for that program.  (These are exemptions that the VRWJPO agreed to after community feedback to make the process less onerous for "initial" splits.)  Commissioner Jennings asked how this would be done if Eureka would take over the process.  Would the SWCD come into play?

Brian Watson replied, "This is where it gets a little bit challenging. As I mentioned before, we (SWCD) currently get a grant to do work with wetlands-doing buffers on those wetlands. But we (SWCD) would not enter into a contract with any township or city to implement the Vermillion River Watershed standards because we are already under contract with the Vermillion River (VRWJPO).  I would see that as a conflict of interest.  As long as I am doing work that can be transferred to that state grant, that's okay."  He stated that when dealing with the VRWJPO standards then it gets "a little gray," and the SWCD would not be able to enter into a contract with any Local Government Unit (LGU). The grant mentioned provides funds for nearly a full-time employee to work on wetlands regarding the state requirements.  Waterway buffers are a different category.  To this point, the VRWJPO has not yet had a buffer installed.

Most Floodplain standards for the Vermillion are captured by the County's Floodplain/Shoreland Ordinance, Zabel commented.  He said if a situation came up where the County's standards for Shoreland and Floodplain did not apply, but the Vermillion's standards did, then Eureka would have to enforce that.

Continuing to the Drainage Alteration standards, to date, Mark Zabel said, the Vermillion has not yet had a request for such an alteration.  The Ordinance covers "a wide swath" on drainage alteration.  Changing a ditch is a drainage alteration.  There can be drainage alterations which also have a wetland impact, Zabel stated.  Kenny Miller asked about "natural" drainage vs. man-made drainage from the '20's and '30's.  Mark replied that the Ordinance applies to existing conveyances, whether "natural" or historical man-made.  The idea is not to alter, obstruct, or divert the drainage flow so that it impedes the system and possibly causes a problem for a neighboring landowner or neighboring community.  Supervisor Ceminsky asked whether there is cost-sharing for such things as (grassed) waterways for farmers, for example.  The short answer was "yes." Zabel clarified the chain of authority and money between the VRWJPO and the SWCD. Commissioner Hansen asked about drain tile regulations.  Zabel said that currently the VRWJPO does not have regulations for that, but would welcome any input if a change were desired.  Brian Watson said that there have been discussions about drain tile regulations in many venues of late.  It is being looked at pretty closely, he stated.  Connecting the tile drainage to the right of way requires a permit.  Wetlands can come into play. Watson talked briefly about what typically happens, however, whereby the requirement for a permit is avoided or skirted, such as "daylighting" the drainage two feet short of a right of way. Zabel said the same thing often happens in regard to someone else's property.  To drain onto someone else's property would be illegal, but oftentimes, it is stopped a foot short of the line.

Commissioner Jennings stated that, if the Ordinance were adopted, Eureka would be the "eyes on the ground" to detect whether some things are happening that might require a permit that hasn't been sought out.  She indicated that she felt the Township would need assistance with that, however.

Keeping soil at tolerable loss levels on Ag Preserves land was brought up.  Eureka as a township is currently required to do this and should be checking this when an application for Ag Preserves is made.  Because there is a tax advantage, the soil loss is to be kept at "tolerable" levels.  Watson said that there is a model that can be used.  Each situation varies, due to things such as slopes, rain events, and so on.  There has been discussion in watersheds whether it would be better to have the watershed, and not the townships, do the applications and renewals, so that this is actually being determined, and it is not just sort of "an automatic approval."  The various LGUs execute the process in different ways and there are no checks and balance, really.

Mike Slavik stated that it would be possible for Eureka to implement the Ordinance.  Other townships are doing so.  He pointed out that in the next phase, there will be efforts to be sure that there is consistency among the different LGUs. Taking on this responsibility, he said, the Township needs to understand that consistency is important.  One township does not follow one set of rules and another township another.  "We can make that happen; you can make that happen."  As public officials we need to make sure the standards are enforced.  The other thing is that there is a net-zero cost to the LGU as the fees are passed through to the applicants.  Size of escrow is important.  All taxpayers do not subsidize an individual project.  "Do it. Don't do it.  We are indifferent...  We will support Eureka...  Just know that there are expectations.  We are going to make sure that those are consistent throughout the entire watershed...  It's your decision; it's been the whole time."

Commissioner  Lu Barfknecht asked, "What is your background as far as your knowledge with all of this?  How many years have you been doing it?  Degrees?  For us to take it on--your knowledge base is so vast.  You can answer the questions just like that, where we could be here for hours trying to interpret our own Ordinance that we might adopt based on this  What are your backgrounds? How long have you been doing this?"

Mark Zabel: Bachelor's Degree in Geology, hydrologist with the MN Dept. of Agriculture for 17 years before coming to the JPO, I have had other environmental jobs, including a short time with the Dakota County SWCD. Water and land conservation is my life.  I also serve as an elected supervisor for the Carver SWCD, and am currently serving as the president of the Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts.  That's why I have some knowledge of state and federal laws and rules.

Mike Slavik: I am in my second year now serving as a Dakota County Commissioner for this area-District 1, also this is my second year on the JPO. Before that I did serve 6 years on the [Hastings] City Council, so I do have experience working with one of the Dakota County communities that is an MS4 (Discussed earlier-based on population triggering different requirements).  I was Chair of the Operations Committee which dealt with many of these issues on public works.  My degree is in Political Science and Public Policy, so I have learned a lot about water and continue to.

Brian Watson: I was born and raised on a dairy farm in Goodhue County.  Have a Bachelor's of Science degree from Mankato State in Natural Resource Management, my emphasis being in Plant Botany.  I have been a certified wetland delineator in the state of Minnesota for 14 years.  I worked with the US Corps of Engineers right out of college; I worked up and down the river on the lock and dam systems.  I moved to a private consulting firm over in Minnetonka and worked primarily on bridge and road design with engineers for 2 years, and I have been with the SWCD for 20 years.

Supervisor Ceminsky asked whether the other townships have had to go out and hire people with these qualifications.  Zabel answered that he understands that they have largely been going through their Building Inspectors. Mark Zabel also stated that the JPO has been holding training and question/answer sessions that they rotate through building inspectors, contractors, and local elected and appointed officials to talk about the standards and the implementation of the standards.  They are currently at the beginning of the cycle again and will set a date soon.

Brian Watson said he would like to weigh in on this topic as he had anticipated the question and

would speak from his wetland experience.  Eureka Township is normally busier than all the other townships.  You have the City of Lakeville knocking on your door to the north; you have the 35 corridor to your west.  You have a lot of different challenges that other townships, such as Hampton or Douglas, don't have.  You have developments that were done back in the '70's and '60's.  In my experience, not just with wetland issues, but also with conservation issues, with landowners with flooding concerns or whatever the issues are, Eureka has more issues than any other township. It gets to be competing interests.  When I look at Eureka ag in relation to the 5-acre, 10-acre homes that are not necessarily in agriculture business, it creates challenges.  Eureka has that more than any other township in Dakota.

Mark Zabel said he is open to questions or emails.  Carrie Jennings asked whether anyone from Eureka was ever involved with one of the JPO's workshops. (I have to put this in here, because Yours Truly is the only person who has actually done so. :-) This was acknowledged by Watson and Zabel.)


The Planning Commission has not yet approved the minutes from this meeting, so one can still request a copy of the recording.